REMEMBER, MOTHER JONES IS A FAR LEFT ANTI-ISRAEL SITE
At a private fundraiser (in May), the GOP candidate calls Middle East peace “almost unthinkable” and says he would “kick the ball down the field.”
—By MOTHER JONES, Sep. 18, 2012
At the private fundraiser held May 17 where Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney candidly … discussed various foreign policy positions, sharing views that he does not express in public, including his belief that peace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible.
Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate dinner and has confirmed its authenticity. The event was held at the home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder in Boca Raton, Florida, with tickets costing $50,000 a plate. During the freewheeling conversation, a donor asked Romney how the “Palestinian problem” can be solved. Romney immediately launched into a detailed reply, asserting that the Palestinians have “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.”
Romney spoke of “the Palestinians” as a united bloc of one mindset, and he said:
-
“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way.”
“And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and I say there’s just no way.”
Romney was indicating he did not believe in the peace process and, as president, would aim to postpone significant action:
-
“[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”
Romney did note there was another perspective on this knotty matter. He informed his donors that a former secretary of state—he would not say who—had told him there was “a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.” Romney recalled that he had replied, “Really?” Then he added that he had not asked this ex-secretary of state for further explanation.
Here’s Romney’s full response; he starts out saying he has “two perspectives,” but as he answers the question, it turns out that’s not really the case:
-
I’m torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I’ve had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say, well, let’s let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions. And I don’t have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It’s—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. So Israel of course would have to say, “That can’t happen. We’ve got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank.” Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, “Uh, no way! We’re an independent country. You can’t, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations.” And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we gonna allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who’s going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, “We’re not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport.” These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, “There’s just no way.” And so what you do is you say, “You move things along the best way you can.” You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don’t go to war to try and resolve it imminently. On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won’t mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there’s a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, “Really?” And, you know, his answer was, “Yes, I think there’s some prospect.” And I didn’t delve into it.
After saying all that, Romney emphasized that he was against applying any pressure on Israel:
-
“The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world.”
On his campaign website, Romney, whose foreign policy advisers include several neocons known for their hawkish support for Israel, does not explicitly endorse the peace process or a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the Republican Party platform does state unequivocal backing for this outcome: “We envision two democratic states—Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine—living in peace and security.” The platform adds, “The US seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, negotiated between the parties themselves with the assistance of the US.”
In public, Romney has not declared the peace process pointless or dismissed the two-state solution. In July, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz asked Romney if he supports a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state, he replied, “I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state.” Yet Romney’s remarks to these funders—this was one of his longest answers at the fundraiser—suggest he might be hiding his true beliefs regarding Israel and the peace process and that on this subject he is out of sync with the predominant view in foreign policy circles that has existed for decades.
Throughout the hourlong fundraiser, Romney discussed other foreign policy matters with his patrons, especially Iran. He repeated the tough talk he has issued on the campaign trail, but he also provided an odd reason for drawing a red line with Tehran about its nuclear program:
If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I’d say let’s get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we’ll just say, “Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we’re going to let off a dirty bomb.” I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don’t have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
Romney didn’t appear to understand that a dirty bomb—an explosive device that spreads radioactive substances—does not require fissile material from a nuclear weapons program. Such a bomb can be produced with, say, radioactive medical waste. If Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat, it is not because this project will yield a dirty bomb.
Talking to these funders, Romney also demonstrated that his campaign-long efforts to criticize Obama’s handling of foreign policy in simplistic and exaggerated terms—he’s an appeaser, he’s an apologist—are not reserved for public consumption. Romney told these well-to-do backers that the president is a naïf with an oversized ego:
The president’s foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chávez and Ahmadinejad, and that they’ll find that we’re such wonderful people that they’ll go on with us, and they’ll stop doing bad things. And it’s an extraordinarily naive perception.
Romney did share a disappointment with his patrons, noting it was “frustrating” to him that on a “typical day” when he does several fundraising events, “the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one.” He complained that “the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq.” But at this fundraiser, Romney received several queries related to national security—and was afforded the opportunity to tell his financial backers what he does not (and will not) tell the public.
Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, Erika Eichelberger, and Tim McDonnell.
@ ArnoldHarris:
I am your age (well just turned 77). Your comments are right on. Couldn’t have said it better.
@ william:
Telling the truth about Israel and the Arabs, as well as about other major social and political issues, is deemed offensive by the media and the ruling elite – right wing and left wing alike. Remember the political storm unleashed by Newt Gingrich when he called Palestinians an “invented people”? Even other GOP candidates were horrified!
Romney should say this loud and clear. There is nothing that he posits that is incorrect. The arabs have shown, time and time again, that they are completely uninterested in anything but the destruction of Israel. They have been avoiding a 2 state solution since 1948.
@ ArnoldHarris:
That is if they choose to seek them out. Unlike the average American, you and I and the others here pay close attention to politics and world events, so we seek out information. The average American has only a marginal interest and still gets their information from the TV news that comes on after their shows.
DEAR TED – I posted a ten-line comment and it’s been blocked. Not only that but it was zapped with no chance for editing. It disappeared in a flash. (I tried it twice.)
It’s not a big deal, really, but it would be helpful if we could know the rules. Sometimes the criterion for blocking seems to be completely random. It does not seem related to the number of lines or choice of words.
If you could post guidelines for us, it would be very appreciated. I’m not just speaking for myself. Some commentators who have been posting here for years get their comments blocked too. The reason for their impatience, I think, is that after a comment has waited for moderation and been approved, it is posted in chronological order, way in the back, and less likely to be ever spotted and read.
Thank you,
Otter
WHAT’S REALLY SCARY is that Romney felt restricted to share these thoughts only with a small like-minded audience (unaware that there was a rat among them).
Just look at the semi-dark ambience in that room. It looks conspiratorial. Telling the truth about Israel and the Arabs has become taboo.
So it won’t be long till Romney is apologizing and explaining that he did not really mean it the way it sounded.
Can we expect any US president to ever deviate from the Palestinian Script as imposed by the media, the State Department, business interests, and Muslim donors? Not likely.
The minstrel show charlatan would put up a better fight against Obama than the retard Romney. Flush him he’s gone.
WHAT’S REALLY SCARY is that Romney felt restricted to share these thoughts only with a small like-minded audience (unaware that there was a rat among them).
Just look at the semi-dark ambience in that room. It looks conspiratorial. Telling the truth about Israel and the Arabs has become taboo.
So it won’t be long till Romney is apologizing and explaining that he did not really mean it the way it sounded.
Can we expect any US president to ever deviate from the Palestinian Script as imposed by the media, the State Department, business interests, and Muslim donors? Not likely.
Hail to the future President of the United States, Mitt Romney!
Finally we hear a logical, honest opinion about the impossibility of a solution, be it one, two or two state, to the Israeil-Palestinian question. He is right in stating that just like the China, Taiwan have not been resolved, so it is with the Israel-Arab problem.
Romney is non-aggressive, says is as it is, and the fact is that the best we can hope for is that some unexpected winds will bring some unexpected changes, as it has throughout history. Many evil empires have tried to destroy our civilized world, but they perished, and we are, by the Grace of God still here.
BTW, if anyone out there could avail Romney of the Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel, here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0065WZM14
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell
Eric,
Since the decline of the political significance of television news reporting in general and of broadcast network news in general, along with the steady decline of the subscription base of most of the liberalist- oriented daily newspapers and weekly news magazines, conspiracy theories about their influence no longer ring as true as they did in the 1960s and 1970s. Increasingly — and rapidly so — people are consulting multiple online sources of every kind and representing a far broader range of politically-relevant opinion and fact than ever before in traceable history. In fact, for many of us, it would be neither unfair no incorrect to label this epoch as the age of the self-taught. At least so in our particular civilizational and cultural milieux. Were it so among the cultures of the Islamic civilization, we might very well not be engaged in a seemingly-endless protracted conflict with them.
Argument is useful. But not overt generalization, would you not agree?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Romney will never win this election if he plays prevent defense.
This is all moot, since according to our perfectly impartial news media, this election is all but over, since the Lord and Moshiach Obama is a shoo-in for re-election.
In fact, our perfectly impartial news media believes that we should do away with all elections and make him President-for-Life, since how can anyone beat the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-Merciful, Lord of the Universe, Savior, Final Prophet, Guardian of Nirvana, Father of Vishnu, the Holy Barack Obama Christ, Blessed Be He, Peace Be Upon Him, Hallelujah!
The predominant view in foreign policy circles is wrong and Romney is right. I wish he would say this publicly.
Ok, so Romney isn’t a nuclear scientist. But it doesn’t take one to know that Iran with nuclear weapons would be a catastrophe.
Romney is correct in all these statements about the possibilities for serious peace in the Middle East. All of us who are loyal to the concepts of the Jewish nation and to Jewish nationalism always have known that only a sort of cold peace could be possible between the Jewish state and the Jewish nation, on one side, and the Arab states and the Arab nation, on the other side. As for the local Arabs residing in Aretz-Yisrael, most of them hope to witness the destruction of Israel. There is only one land, and two nations cannot equally share it.
As I endlessly preach on this blogsite, Israel can only respond to this long-term condition by rapidly expanding its Jewish population base and its industrial base, and by taking permanent control over, annexing, and settling large areas adjacent to the country’s present borders. All things considered, large, well-populated and industrialized countries have much better expectations of long-term survival than small states with hostile neighbors.
As for Iran, if the present Ayutollist regime cannot be overthrown and replaced with s more reasonable government, then that country’s stockpiles of radioactive materials will continue to be enriched to weapons grade, and those weapons will in fact be used, either for nuclear blackmail against the West in general — including the USA — and almost certainly against Israel.
I think Romney understands these Middle East strategic problems very clearly, and that he may well care enough about the situation to do something constructively useful about it, breaking the mold of the foreign policies of most of the previous US presidents going back 60-70 years — even though I have been listening to presidential campaign rhetoric every four years for most of the 78 years of my life, and this could in fact amount to little or nothing in the way of US-supported permanent solutions.
As for Obama, I think we all understand by now that his attitude toward the Jewish state, the Jewish nation and Jewish nationalism are based on the contempt for us that he learned from his white liberal mother; his African Muslim father; his childhood Muslim caretakers in Indonesia, where he learned not only to pray as a Muslim but to think and believe as one; and finally, to his white liberal academic and political mentors who pulled him up to the high platform of US national leadership. I never have trusted that man, and any real Jew — or any other kind of American — would be foolish to do so.
The bottom line here is that Israel and the Jews cannot depend on the USA under anyone’s leadership. The essence of independence is to be independent in fact as well as theory. An independent state must have the power, including a military, to enforce its will against any and all outsiders and to fully guard the rights of the nation it represents — in this case, the Jewish nation.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Yes, it is reassuring. What troubles me is that he is afraid to say what he really thinks because he will get hammered so he has been keeping a low profile on issues. Sarah Palin advised him to get “severely aggressive” and his campaign wants to take her advice but they are all timid, so far. Romney is spot on in these remarks.
Well, it is reassuring that Romney is so realistic about the Muslim nations and that he supports Israel wholeheartedly. It would be a wonderful change to have someone in the White House who would not pressure Israel to give up more for an unattainable peace with Palestine and other Arab neighbors.